Season 5 might be an tie in to Spider-Man Homecoming, and the goons that captured the team could be working for the Vulture, because it is too early to do an Infinity War tie in, since the movie doesn't come out till next year.

Doubt Sony would crossover with AoS that would make no sense. Ratings are not that grand and the season ending now does nothing for a movie releasing in July.

I gotta say I'm a bit bugged by the finale. I'm annoyed it ended with a "Shields gets framed" idea we've already seen done plenty of times before in this show. I really hope next scene opens with someone pointing out "Hey Daisy is on the security footage in two places at the same time and there's a bunch of robot corpses. Also I'm tire of LMD and the russian, wish he was taken care of this season rather than saved for next. They've run their course

Quote:

Originally Posted by legendkillin

Doubt Sony would crossover with AoS that would make no sense. Ratings are not that grand and the season ending now does nothing for a movie releasing in July.

I think the most we'll get a passing reference like Ant-man. Maybe some tie-in with super weapons. Sony would not let characters get used unless there was something in it for them. You could argue a promotional use, but the movie comes out in the summer and since AoS is pushed to January the blu ray will be out already. So really nothing Spidey specific to make that argument to Sony. If anything they'd double down on Infinity war than focus on spider-man

I gotta say I'm a bit bugged by the finale. I'm annoyed it ended with a "Shields gets framed" idea we've already seen done plenty of times before in this show. I really hope next scene opens with someone pointing out "Hey Daisy is on the security footage in two places at the same time and there's a bunch of robot corpses. Also I'm tire of LMD and the russian, wish he was taken care of this season rather than saved for next. They've run their course

I think the most we'll get a passing reference like Ant-man. Maybe some tie-in with super weapons. Sony would not let characters get used unless there was something in it for them. You could argue a promotional use, but the movie comes out in the summer and since AoS is pushed to January the blu ray will be out already. So really nothing Spidey specific to make that argument to Sony. If anything they'd double down on Infinity war than focus on spider-man

I'm tired of the whole SHIELD frame up as well. Hope next season, that's cleared up quickly and I also wish the Russian died in the finale for good.

I anticipate the complete opposite. From a practical in-story and out-of-story sense, S.H.I.E.L.D.'s existence should be finite. After the show ends, which will very likely be after next season, you don't want a loose end hanging over the entire MCU canon like an organization that for most people was ended in Winter Solider, not to mention a character that was supposed to have died in The Avengers.

I expect the end of the show to be the end of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Coulson in the MCU entirely. As much as he and his team's heart is always in the right place, they really are reckless and abuse human rights like it's nothing. The organization has always caused as many problems as it's solved and should rightly end when the series does I believe.

I anticipate the complete opposite. From a practical in-story and out-of-story sense, S.H.I.E.L.D.'s existence should be finite. After the show ends, which will very likely be after next season, you don't want a loose end hanging over the entire MCU canon like an organization that for most people was ended in Winter Solider, not to mention a character that was supposed to have died in The Avengers.

I expect the end of the show to be the end of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Coulson in the MCU entirely. As much as he and his team's heart is always in the right place, they really are reckless and abuse human rights like it's nothing. The organization has always caused as many problems as it's solved and should rightly end when the series does I believe.

That would just tick off fans of the show and create a backlash, as I like Agents of SHIELD and don't want the show to end with season 5. I'd like to see the show get a season 6 at the very least.

Plus I don't see Coulson and his team as reckless, nor do I see them violate human rights.

The last two seasons they've put the entire planet in jeopardy for the sake of trying to save one or two close friends. They make Tony Stark seems like a boy scout.

Quote:

nor do I see them violate human rights.

They routinely invades people's privacy, kidnap suspects without jurisdiction, falsely imprison people and trespass on private property. It's not uncommon for them to lightly torture prisoners like it's nothing either. Daisy can be particularly corrupt when she feels she has a bigot in her midst.

The last two seasons they've put the entire planet in jeopardy for the sake of trying to save one or two close friends. They make Tony Stark seems like a boy scout.

They routinely invades people's privacy, kidnap suspects without jurisdiction, falsely imprison people and trespass on private property. It's not uncommon for them to lightly torture prisoners like it's nothing either. Daisy can be particularly corrupt when she feels she has a bigot in her midst.

Well I'd do the same thing for a friend. I don't see them or Tony as reckless not at all.

Let's see some of these people are hate filled bigots, terrorists and murderers. It could be argued for their crimes and bigotry, they give up their rights. Plus SHIELD's jurisdiction is all of Earth.

Well I'd do the same thing for a friend. I don't see them or Tony as reckless not at all.

Let's see some of these people are hate filled bigots, terrorists and murderers. It could be argued for their crimes and bigotry, they give up their rights. Plus SHIELD's jurisdiction is all of Earth.

By some sort of ultra-authoritarian neo-fascist, maybe. And SHIELD only have international jurisdiction or the ability to use enhanced individuals with the assent of the United Nations, a legal reality they flout continuously. They have in essence always been a criminal organization in practise, if not in principle.

By some sort of ultra-authoritarian neo-fascist, maybe. And SHIELD only have international jurisdiction or the ability to use enhanced individuals with the assent of the United Nations, a legal reality they flout continuously. They have in essence always been a criminal organization in practise, if not in principle.

At the end of the day, I would trust SHIELD to protect the planet from threats like Hydra for example.

They routinely invades people's privacy, kidnap suspects without jurisdiction, falsely imprison people and trespass on private property. It's not uncommon for them to lightly torture prisoners like it's nothing either.

That raises two issues (among others):

1. Is their behavior when they do those things immoral?
I would say it depends on the case.

2. In any case, is that a reason to remove them from the MCU?
It seems to me that Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Daredevil also routinely do some of those things (or maybe all? I'm not sure). Or do you think that Netflix shows do not count as MCU?
Still, it seems to me that some of the main characters (e.g., some of the Avengers, GoTG, Ant-Man, Black Phanter, Dr. Strange) regularly break laws, trespass on anything in their way (borders, private property, restricted areas, etc.), they don't seem to have any legal jurisdiction much of the time at least, and - depending on the case - ignore any kind of privacy (I'm not sure about the slight torture, though I remember Captain America seems to threaten one of his enemies to force him to talk when he thought the fight was over; it didn't work).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panacea

And SHIELD only have international jurisdiction or the ability to use enhanced individuals with the assent of the United Nations, a legal reality they flout continuously. They have in essence always been a criminal organization in practise, if not in principle.

They break laws all the time, but isn't that similar to the Avengers, GoTG, Defenders, etc.?
My point is that on those matters, AoS does not appear exceptional in the MCU.

Well I never said it was. That was my narrative reason for it ending at some point, why the in-story authorities would not allow it to continue. The production reason is that SHIELD and Coulson existing in the MCU post AoS only muddies the wider narrative without adding any benefit. For the majority of viewers (of the movies especially), Coulson died in The Avengers and SHIELD ended in Winter Solider. If the show can end things with a neat bow then it makes sense that the producers would seek to do that.

Well I never said it was. That was my narrative reason for it ending at some point, why the in-story authorities would not allow it to continue. The production reason is that SHIELD and Coulson existing in the MCU post AoS only muddies the wider narrative without adding any benefit. For the majority of viewers (of the movies especially), Coulson died in The Avengers and SHIELD ended in Winter Solider. If the show can end things with a neat bow then it makes sense that the producers would seek to do that.

I thought that you were offering that as a reason not from within the story.

If it's a narrative reason, the in-story authorities do not seem either very competent at stopping them, or very willing to do so. Granted, in the story, that might change. But alternatively, in the story, they might get killed, or just going to fight somewhere else (they're in space, so maybe that's a start). So, I would say that intervention by the in-world authorities is one option among several, and we'll have to wait and see.

As for the production reason, I'm not sure the people making the movies care much one way or another (after all, viewers of the movies mostly ignore them), but if they do, I agree that that would be a reason.

That aside, I don't know SHIELD ended in TWS in the movies. In AoU, Maria Hill shows up with a helicarrier, and when Pietro Maximoff asks whether that's SHIELD, Rogers says it's what SHIELD is supposed to be. While he didn't say "yes", context suggests in my view that that was implicit (i.e., probably that was SHIELD).